Tentative Ruling: Matter of Margaret M Dewey Revocable Trust

Case Number

25PR00590

Case Type

Trust

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 03/04/2026 - 09:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition re Internal Affairs of Trust for Instructions; Petition re Internal Affairs of the Trust to Remove Trustee and to Appoint Successor Trustee; Compel an Accounting; For Surcharge; etc

Tentative Ruling

Attorneys

Eric Berg for Petitioner Jasper Dewey Trustee of the Margaret Dewey Revocable Trust.

Craig Cox for Petitioner Michelle Dewey-Doughty.

Emails: eric@berglawgroup.com; craig@jrgattorneys.com;

Issue

There are two Petitions pending in this case. For both Petitions, the question is whether a 60-day survivorship provision as stated in Decedent’s Will should apply or a 30-day survivorship provision as stated in Decedent’s Trust.

Ruling

The Court has read everything, approximately 100 pages of materials. It is a case of consequence. The Court understands the contentions made. The Court rules as follows:

The Matter is referred to the CMADRESS program. Michele and certain Dewey family members may appear at that session via Zoom from their native England.
The Matter is set for an evidentiary hearing/trial with the Pretrial Conference at 11:30am on 8/12/26 and trial will be on Thursday 8/13/26 and Friday 8/14/26.
All trial documents such as trial briefs, witness lists with estimated time allotted, and exhibit lists due one week in advance of the Pretrial Conference.
If you want a Court Reporter, you will need to secure one; otherwise, the courtroom recording device will be used.

Analysis

Trustee’s First Amended Petition for Instructions

Filed 12/29/25; set for 2/26/26; 36 pages; read and considered: summarized: Jasper Dewey, Trustee of the Margaret M. Dewey Revocable Trust, (“Dewey Trust”) submits this Petition for Instructions under Probate Code § 17200 (“Petition”), and in support thereof states:

1.The Dewey Trust was established on 20 December 1990. The terms of the Revocable Trust were entirely reinstated by way of the Eighth Amendment executed on 1 February 2019. This is the same day that Margaret M. Dewey (“Margaret”) established her Will (“Will”). True and correct copies of the Eighth and Ninth Amendments to the Dewey Trust and the Will are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

2. Pursuant to the terms of the Dewey Trust, as set forth in the Eighth Amendment: a. Section 6.03 appoints Petitioner as the successor trustee (the “Trustee”).

b. Section 3.02: sets out how the Trustee is to distribute the trust assets upon Margaret’s death; and

c. Section 7.10: sets out that if any beneficiary of the Dewey Trust fails to survive Margaret for thirty (30) days, then, for all purposes of the Dewey Trust, the beneficiary shall be considered to have predeceased Margaret (the “30-day Survivorship Provision”).

2. [sic] Upon Margaret’s death, the Dewey Trust became irrevocable.

3. Pursuant to the terms of the Will, the will provided that:

a. Gifts the residue of the estate to the trustee of the Dewey Trust, to be held and administered by the trustee according to the terms and conditions of the Dewey Trust; and

b. If the Dewey Trust is not in existence at Margaret’s date of death, then the Will gives a right to live in the property 2623 State Street Unit M-3, Santa Barbara, California, the sum of $78,000 cash, and all chattels, to Margaret’s husband Nicholas Dewey; and

c. several specific chattels were listed on a memorandum or letter of wishes

d. the residue of the estate be divided into six equal shares, and distributes those shares to the following persons, if he or she survives Margaret: one-sixth share to each of her children, Margaret, Oliver Dewey (“Oliver”), Galen, Benjamin and Trustee; and the remaining one-sixth share distributed in three parts, with 50% to her son Ralph, and 25% to each of Ralph’s children Aaron and Genevieve; and

e. for all gifts under the Will, the beneficiary must survive Margaret for sixty (60) days before entitlement to such gift. (the “60-day Survivorship Provision”).

4. Accordingly, the 60-day Survivorship Provision as set forth in the Will is in conflict with the 30-day Survivorship Provision of the Dewey Trust.

5. Margaret passed away on July 13, 2024.

6. Margaret’s son Oliver passed away on September 3, 2024 after a lengthy illness. While Oliver survived Margaret by 30 days, he did not survive Margaret by 60 days. When Oliver passed away, he was survived by his wife Michelle M. Doughty (“Michelle”), who he married on or about April 23, 2024 in what is known under English law as a “death bed” wedding.

7. It is Trustee’s position that the 30 day Survivorship Provision as set forth in the Trust is the result of a drafting error.

8. On November 15, 2024, Trustee provided counsel for Michelle with a copy of Margaret’s Will, along with a copy of the Ninth Amendment to the Margaret M. Dewey Revocable Trust and a copy of the Eighth Amendment, which represents a full restatement of the trust. On this date, Trustee also provided counsel for Michelle an affidavit signed by Margaret’s husband and Trustee’s father, Dr. Nicholas Dewey, outlining the 60-day testamentary intent of Margaret and explaining the scrivener's error which resulted in an inconsistency in the two documents. As part of this notice, Trustee advised counsel for Michelle that the attorney who prepared both documents had been notified and advised of his drafting error. Trustee further advised counsel for Michelle that the drafting attorney did in fact concede that he did in fact make an error, and that if he had he more carefully reviewed the documents at the time, he would have corrected the inconsistency

9. Trustee, through his counsel, subsequently advised counsel for Michelle of the following as it relates to Margaret’s intent:

a. When Trustee visited Oliver for the last time in hospital, just before his death, Oliver asked Michelle to leave the room when discussing the Will and Trust, and advised Trustee that it was not his intent for Michelle to inherit his share; and

b. Before Oliver’s death Michelle refused to share prognosis or medical updates with the family, refused to let him complete an advanced health care directive, and went against family wishes for his care; and

c. A text from Oliver on April 23, 2024 to his family states as follows: “Civil ceremony. Michelle wanted it expedited before I start treatment Friday.” Oliver’s friends will demonstrate that he was uncomfortable about the marriage and that Michelle prevented visitors who questioned this and other decisions about his treatment; and

d. Because it was Margaret’s clear intent to separate assets, the attorney who prepared Margaret’s Estate Plan re-wrote the Trust to exclude Margaret’s husband Nicholas. No spouses were included in the Trust, other than a gift to Nicholas; and

e. That it was Margaret’s intent to utilize a sixty day survivorship provision, and that it was further her intent that her assets be distributed exclusively to her children and grandchildren. Spouses, including Nicholas as her husband of over sixty years, were not intended beneficiaries.

10. Michelle, through her counsel, disagrees that the 60 day survivorship provision governs, alleges that the 30 day survivorship provision governs, and accordingly asserts that she is entitled to Oliver’s share of Margaret’s estate. Trustee and Margaret’s four other surviving children disagree.

11. Additionally, Michelle, through her counsel, has requested that Trustee provide her with an Accounting. Trustee disputes that he owes any duty towards Michelle to provide an accounting.

12. The Trustee has authority pursuant to Probate Code Section 17200 (a) to petition the Court concerning the internal affairs of the trust. Pursuant to Section 17200 (b)(1) and (b)(13), this Court has authority to both determine questions of construction of a trust instrument and approve the modification of a trust.

13. Venue is proper in this Court because the principal place of administration of the Trust is in the County of Santa Barbara, pursuant to Probate Code Section 17002.

14. The names and addresses of the parties entitled to notice of this Petition are as follows:

a. Michelle Doughty, in care of S. Craig Cox, 318 Cayuga Street, Salinas, California 93901; and

b. Jasper Dewey, in care of Berg Law Group, 3905 State Street, Suite 7-104, Santa Barbara, California 93105; and

c. Margaret Thayer Weidlein, 3421 34th Place, Washington, DC 20016; and

d. Galen Dewey, 1 Emerald Court, Emerald Street, London WC1N3QA, UK; and

e. [sic]

f. Ralph Thayer, PO Box 98, 32 W 8th Street, Barnegat Light, NJ 08006; and

g. Aaron Thayer, PO Box 594, Kingston, NJ 08528; and

h. Genevieve Thayer, 127 Cranbury Road, Princeton Junction, NJ 08550; and

i. Benjamin Dewey, 17 Greenbank Avenue West, Bristol BS5 6EP, UK.

Trustee seeks the following finding and orders:

1. Notice of the Petition has been given as required by law; and

2. That the Trust be modified and reformed to reflect a sixty (60) day right of survivorship in order for any beneficiary to be entitled to a share of Trust proceeds under the terms of the Trust; and

3. That neither Michelle nor the Estate of Oliver Dewey be entitled to any distribution pursuant to the terms of the Trust based upon Oliver’s not having survived Margaret by sixty days or longer; and

4. That neither Michelle nor the Estate of Oliver Dewey be entitled to any Accounting pursuant to the terms of the Trust based upon Oliver’s not having survived Margaret by sixty days or longer; and

5. For Attorney fees and costs, according to proof; and

6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Petition to Remove Trustee and Appoint Successor Trustee; and To Compel an Accounting; and for Surcharge; and for Confirmation of Beneficiary’s Entitlement

Filed 12/31/25; 32 pages; summarized:

1. This is a petition to remove Jasper Dewey (“Jasper”) as Trustee of the Margaret M. Dewey Revocable Trust (“Trust”). Jasper has committed multiple breaches of fiduciary duties, including refusing to account, failing to provide trust documents, unreasonably delaying in administration, and open hostility toward Petitioner —a vested beneficiary.

2. Petitioner is the surviving spouse and executor of the estate of Oliver Dewey (“Oliver”), who is one of six children of the Settlor, Margaret M. Dewey (“Margaret”), and who survived Margaret by fifty-two (52) days. Under the Trust’s plain 30-day survivorship clause, Oliver’s share vested and passed to Petitioner as his successor-in-interest.

3. Jasper is also one of Margaret’s six children, as well as a beneficiary of the Trust and the successor trustee of the Trust, who resides in Santa Barbara, California, where the Trust is being administered.

4. For nearly eighteen months, Jasper has refused to administer the Trust in accordance with its written terms. Instead, he has attempted to rewrite the Trust unilaterally by claiming —without evidence —that the 30-day survivorship clause appearing in multiple amendments was a “drafting error.” This interpretation benefits Jasper personally by eliminating Oliver’s share.

5. Jasper’s actions constitute good cause for removal under Probate Code §15642. Petitioner seeks removal, appointment of a neutral successor trustee, an accounting, surcharge, and confirmation of her vested entitlement to Oliver’s one-sixth share.

6. This Court has jurisdiction under Probate Code §§17000 and 17200 to review the internal affairs of a trust and to allow a beneficiary and/or a representative thereof, to petition the court to do so.

7. Venue is proper under Probate Code Section 17005 because, as mentioned herein, the Respondent is a resident of Santa Barbara County, and the Trust is being administered in Santa Barbara County.

8. The names and addresses of the parties entitled to notice of this Petition are as follows:

a. Jasper Dewey, 822 Windsor Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93105;

b. Margaret Thayer Weidlein, 3421 34th Place, Washington, DC 20016;

c. Galen Dewey, 1 Emerald Court, Emerald Street, London WC1N3QA, UK;

d. Ralph Thayer, PO Box 98, 32 W8th Street, Barnegat Light, NJ 08006;

e. Aaron Thayer, PO Box 594, Kingston, NJ 08528;

f. Genevieve Thayer, 127 Cranbury Road, Princeton Junction, NJ 08550; and

g. Benjamin Dewey, 17 Greenbank Avenue West, Bristol BS5 6EP, UK.

9. Margaret died testate on July 13, 2024. She was survived by her husband, Nicholas Dewey, and all six of her children, Margaret Thayer Weidlein, Ralph Perry Thayer, Jr., Galen N.J. Dewey, Benjamin G.A. Dewey Jasper J.Q. Dewey, and Oliver, who died on September 3, 2024; 52 days after Margaret.

10. By the time Margaret died, she had amended her Trust nine separate times. Both the Eighth Amendment dated February 1, 2019 (Eight Amendment) and the Ninth Amendment dated March 11, 2021 (Ninth Amendment), copies of which are attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B”, respectively, set forth a survivorship provision requiring that each beneficiary survive Margaret by 30 days.

11. Paragraph 7.10 of the Trust states the following:

Survivorship: Beneficiaries Required to Survive Settlor by 30 Days.

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this instrument, if any person named herein fails to survive Settlor for 30 days, then, for all purposes of this trust, the person shall be considered to have predeceased Settlor.

12. While the Petitioner never received copies of Margaret’s prior amendments despite her repeated requests to Jasper, she believes that the 30 day survivorship provision was approved and confirmed by Margaret in each of her prior amendments. In fact, Margaret’s Ninth Amendment confirms and reiterates the 30-day survivorship provision of Section 7.10 of the Trust. In Section 2 of the Ninth Amendment, Margaret specifically amends Article Three, Section 3.04 of the Trust and states in pertinent part as follows:

Distribution of Shares to Issue of a Deceased Child or Grandchild

If one of the Settlor’s children or grandchildren does not survive Settlor as set forth in Section 7.10, below, then the share allocated to the deceased child or grandchild of Settlor shall be distributed to the issue of that deceased child or grandchild… (emphasis added.)

13. Because the Ninth Amendment specifically revised the portion of the Trust that included the 30-day survivorship clause, it is apparent on the face of the document that Margaret purposefully reviewed, contemplated, and approved the 30-day survivorship clause.

14. Oliver survived 52 days after Margaret, so his distributive interests representing one-sixth of the estate as set forth in the Trust, should vest.

15. While the Trust explicitly provides a 30-day survivorship period, Margaret’s Will dated February 1, 2019, which is a “Pour-Over Will”, sets forth a 60-day survivorship requirement, as follows: “For all gifts under this will, I require that the beneficiary survive me for sixty (60) days before entitlement to such gift.”

16. Because of the Will’s 60-day survivorship requirement, Jasper, without authority and approval of this court, has unilaterally decided to impose the Will’s 60-day survivorship clause onto the terms of the Trust, and bases his reasoning for doing so as being a “scriveners’ error” on the part of the drafting attorney. Therefore, Jasper takes the position that Oliver’s estate is not a beneficiary of the Trust and is not entitled to any information whatsoever.

17. Jasper’s position is in contradiction to the terms of the Trust and is self-serving because it only increases Jasper’s share of the inheritance and is in absolute breach of his fiduciary duties owed to the Trust and the beneficiaries. What Jasper, and his counsel, fail to recognize is that the Pour-Over Will is only meant to govern the distribution of the Settlor’s estate when the Trust is no longer in existence. In the event the Trust does not exist at the time of Margaret’s death, then the terms of the Will would govern the distribution of her estate. However, as long as the Trust exists, the 60-day survivorship clause in the Pour-Over Will is irrelevant because the Will only acts to pour all assets of Settlor’s estate into the Trust, and the Trust terms control Trust distributions.

18. Between the time frame of November 2024 and January 2025, Petitioner’s counsel repeatedly requested that Jasper produce the following:

(a) copies of all prior trust amendments; and

(b) copies of the drafting attorney’s complete files; and

(d) documentary evidence in support of the alleged “scrivener’s error.”

19. Jasper refused every request, despite his statutory duties under Probate Code §§16060–16063.

20. Instead, Jasper produced a hearsay affidavit from Margaret’s 93-year-old widower, Nicholas Dewey, who was not present for document execution and who lived in a nursing home at Burford, Oxfordshire, in the United Kingdom, at the time he allegedly executed the affidavit on November 16, 2024. Mr. Dewey’s statements are inadmissible to prove intent and are not credible due to possible lack of capacity. Further, I am informed and believe that Nicholas Dewey passed away in early 2025.

21. Furthermore, Jasper produced no affidavit or declaration from the attorney who drafted the Trust or Will to support his position that there was indeed a drafting error and/or to explain how Margaret allegedly managed to overlook the 30-days survivorship clause in all nine of her amendments to Trust made over the span of several decades despite having the advice of competent counsel.

22. On February 3, 2025, Jasper made a coercive “take-it-or-leave-it” settlement offer of $75,000 without providing a schedule of Trust assets. This was clearly meant to keep Petitioner in the dark and to prevent her from making a reasoned decision concerning her rights and interests in the Trust.

23. Jasper is both a beneficiary and the Trustee of the Trust. If Oliver’s share is eliminated through Jasper’s insistence that the 60-day survivorship clause in the Will should apply to the Trust as well, then Jasper’s share of the inheritance only increases. This is a clear conflict of interest and violates the duty of impartiality under Probate Code §16003.

24. Furthermore, Jasper did not file his petition for instructions until nearly 18 months after Margaret’s death, and only when the Petitioner made it clear to Jasper’s lawyer that she would be seeking to remove him as trustee.

25. These delayed and protracted self-serving actions violate Jasper’s duty to administer the Trust expeditiously under Probate Code §16000 with the utmost fiduciary care.

26. Instead, Jasper’s communications with the Petitioner have devolved into personal attacks on Petitioner, accusations regarding her marriage, and irrelevant commentary about Oliver’s medical treatment. This hostility impairs Jasper’s ability to serve as trustee and violates his fiduciary obligations.

27. Petitioner seeks not only this court’s confirmation that the 30-day survivorship clause in the Trust and all its amendments be upheld, but that Jasper be removed as trustee on the grounds set forth herein.

28. Probate Code §15642(a) authorizes removal of a trustee in accordance with the trust instrument, by the court on its own motion, or on petition of a settlor, co-trustee, or beneficiary under Section 17200.

29. Probate Code §15642(b) identifies the grounds for removal of a trustee, which include: breach of trust; unfitness; failure to administer the Trust; hostility impairing administration; conflict of interest; and any other cause where removal is in the interest of beneficiaries.

30. As mentioned herein, Jasper has committed multiple breaches of his fiduciary duties owed to the Trust, including the following:

(a) Refusal to render an account as required under Article Six, Section 6.01, which specifically states in pertinent part as follows: After the death of Settlor, the trustee shall render an accounting, besides any accounting required under California Probate Code Section 16060, et seq., from time to time but not less than every one year after any prior accounting…Accounting shall also be rendered by any trustee or the trustee’s representative within 90 days after his or her resignation, death, disability, or removal by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Refusal to provide Trust documents and other supporting documentation including but not limited to, an appraisal of all assets of the Trust, information regarding the liquidation of its assets, as well as documentation in support of his assertions of the 60-day survivorship provision which has led to the filing of these petitions in court.

(c) Refusal to make distributions per the terms of the Trust in advancement of a self-serving interpretation of the Settlor’s Will thus diverting assets for his own personal benefit.

(d) Failure to act timely in all dealings therefore, causing an unreasonable delay in the trust administration.

(e) For causing damage to the Trust estate with unnecessary attorney’s fees and costs spent as the result of asserting his self-serving interpretation of Margaret’s Will.

(f) For not performing his duties as Trustee in good faith and with reasonable prudence, discretion and decorum, and instead acting with nothing but hostility towards the Petitioner, the legitimate and beloved wife of his deceased brother, Oliver.

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner requests that the Court:

1. Confirm the 30-day survivorship clause under the terms of the Trust and that Oliver’s one-sixth beneficiary interest in the Trust estate vested upon Margaret’s death; and

2. Remove Jasper Dewey as Trustee of the Trust and appoint a neutral professional fiduciary to act as the trustee of the Trust; and

3. Compel Jasper to provide a full accounting from July 13, 2024, to present detailing his acts as trustee and providing a detailed appraisal and account of all assets within 90 days of the court’s order as required under the terms of the Trust; and

4. Compel production of all amendments to the Trust, including drafts, and the drafting attorney’s files; and

5. Surcharge Jasper for:

a. attorneys’ fees spent advancing his self-interested interpretation; and

b. losses caused by delay; and

c. any additional damages established at hearing; and

6. Award Petitioner attorney’s fees and costs under Probate Code §17211(b); and

7. Order immediate distribution of Oliver’s vested share to Petitioner as the court appointed Executor of Oliver’s estate; and

8. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Verified by Michelle Dewey-Doughty.

Supported by Exhibits A-B.

Supported by the Declaration Michelle Dewey-Doughty. 67 pages

Supported by the Declaration of Michael Culver; 2 pages

Trustee Jasper Dewey’s Verified Opposition to Petition to Remove Trustee

Filed 2/20/26; 8 pages; summarized: Margaret M. Dewey (“Margaret”) passed away on July 13, 2024. Margaret’s son Oliver passed away on September 3, 2024 after a lengthy illness. While Oliver survived Margaret by 30 days, he did not survive Margaret by 60 days. When Oliver passed away, he was survived by his wife Michelle M. Doughty (“Michelle”), who he married on or about April 23, 2024, in what is known under English law as a “death bed” wedding. It is Trustee’s position that the 30 day Survivorship Provision as set forth in the Trust is the result of a drafting error.

On November 15, 2024, Trustee provided counsel for Michelle with a copy of Margaret’s Will, along with a copy of the Ninth Amendment to the Margaret M. Dewey Revocable Trust and a copy of the Eighth Amendment, which represents a full restatement of the trust. On this date, Trustee also provided counsel for Michelle an affidavit signed by Margaret’s husband and Trustee’s father, Dr. Nicholas Dewey, outlining the 60-day testamentary intent of Margaret and explaining the scrivener's error which resulted in an inconsistency in the two documents. As part of this notice, Trustee advised counsel for Michelle that the attorney who prepared both documents had been notified and advised of his drafting error. Trustee further advised counsel for Michelle that the drafting attorney did in fact concede that he did in fact make an error, and that if he had he more carefully reviewed the documents at the time, he would have corrected the inconsistency.

Trustee through his counsel, subsequently advised counsel for Michelle of the following as it relates to Margaret’s intent:

a. When Trustee visited Oliver for the last time in hospital, just before his death, Oliver asked Michelle to leave the room when discussing the Will and Trust and advised Trustee that it was not his intent for Michelle to inherit his share.

c. A text from Oliver on April 23, 2024, to his family states as follows: “Civil ceremony. Michelle wanted it expedited before I start treatment Friday.” Oliver’s friends will demonstrate that he was uncomfortable about the marriage and that Michelle prevented visitors who questioned this and other decisions about his treatment.

Michelle, through her counsel, disagrees that the 60 day survivorship provision governs, alleges that the 30 day survivorship provision governs, and accordingly asserts that she is entitled to Oliver’s share of Margaret’s estate. Trustee and Margaret’s four other surviving children disagree. Additionally, Michelle, through her counsel, has requested that Trustee provide her with an Accounting. Trustee disputes that he owes any duty towards Michelle to provide an accounting.

On November 14, 2025, Trustee petitioned the Court concerning the internal affairs of the trust, on the basis that pursuant to Section 17200 (b)(1) and (b)(13), this Court has authority to both determine questions of construction of a trust instrument and approve the modification of a trust.

Sets out 11 Affirmative Defenses

Michelle Dewey-Doughty’s Verified Opposition to Trustee’s Verified 1AC

Filed 2/23/26; 10 pages; Respondent respectfully requests that the Court deny Trustee’s Verified First Amended Petition for Instructions in its entirety and confirm that Oliver Dewey’s interest vested under the express terms of the Trust. Because Trustee pursued his position without reasonable cause and in bad faith, Respondent further requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Probate Code section 17211(b), or alternatively as damages and surcharge arising from Trustee’s breaches of fiduciary duty. Respondent also requests that the Court reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of such fees and costs and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Michelle Dewey-Doughty’s Reply to Opposition

Filed 2/25/26. Petitioner requests that the Court grant the Petition to Remove Trustee, appoint a neutral successor trustee, order a full and formal accounting, surcharge Trustee for attorneys’ fees and costs, order immediate distribution to Petitioner in accordance with the explicit Trust language, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Trustee Jasper Dewey’s CMC Statement

Filed 2/25/26; Trustee believes that this matter would greatly benefit from a referral to the CMADRESS program. One of the bases for Michele’s request that Jasper be removed as trustee is the allegation that Trustee waited an inappropriately long period of time before formally pursuing this Petition for Instructions. Trustee’s position is that he promptly attempted to propose and arrange for a mediation of this dispute in the hope that estate resources would not need to be spent on litigation, but that counsel for Michele refused until certain financial data was first shared with her. Trustee and his family have attempted to engage Michele on resolution since shortly after Margaret’s death, continue to want to do so, and believe this is a case that lends itself well to an early resolution attempt.

Should CMADRESS/any related mediation follow up prove unsuccessful, limited written discovery and depositions will be needed on the issue of Margaret’s intent, primarily from the trust attorney who prepared Margaret’s estate plan. Petitioner requests that the Court refer this matter to CMADRESS now and allow both Michele and certain Dewey family member to appear at that session via Zoom from their native England. Should the matter require Court resolution, Petitioner anticipates a two day court hearing, and requests that the matter be set for the week of August 10, 2026.

The Court’s Conclusions

The Dewey Trust case is on calendar for 3/4/26 at 9:30 a.m. There are two Petitions filed. One by the Trustee and one by the widow of Settlor’s son. Both Petitions revolve around the same issue. The Will includes instructions that an heir must survive Decedent by 60 days to inherit. The Trust document includes a 30-day survivability provision. This is an issue since one of Decedent’s sons died 52 days after her. His widow has brought a Petition to remove the current Trustee, compel and accounting, and surcharge him. Trustee brought the first Petition for Instructions from the Court about how to handle the discrepancy in the two documents. The Trustee wants to apply the 60-day provision which would cause the deceased son’s share to be split among the remaining siblings. The widow wants the 30-day provision applied. Then her husband’s share would be part of his estate and go to her. Generally speaking, the Trust instrument will control since the Will “pours over” into the Trust. (Prob. Code 6300). However, in this case, Trustee says that the attorney who drafted the Trust restatement with the 30-day requirement has admitted it was a scrivener’s error. There is no declaration however, from said attorney. If Mr. Berg could produce such a declaration that could help the court. The Trustee could also produce previous iterations of the Trust with a 30-day survivability provision. That would help the court to determine the testamentary intent of Settlor/Decedent.

There are questions that could be addressed by the Trustee that would inform the court better:

Do we have a verified declaration from the attorney who prepared the 8^th amendment and complete restatement of the Trust? (Trustee says that he has admitted to a scrivener’s error but there is no declaration from him.)
Do we have past iterations of the Trust document? Do those past restatements include a 60-day survivorship provision? (If yes, this is indicative of Decedent’s testamentary intent.)

In any event this case obviously needs to be set for an evidentiary hearing.

Thomas P. Anderle, Judge

Judicial Branch of California

ATTENTION:

Notice: